'MOHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, J.--- The above titled appeal by leave of the Court, arises out of the judgment of the High Court dated 22nd November, 2014, whereby writ petition filed by the predecessor-ininterest of the appellants, herein, has been dismissed.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the instant appeal are that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, herein, filed a suit for possession of the land on the basis of right of prior purchase in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimber, in respect of the land bearing khewat No,78, khata No,708, khasra No,1143, village Gorsian, measuring 1 kanal, 15 marlas. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application before the trial Court alleging therein, that he wants to summon Sub-Postmaster, Jatlan, along with the concerned register pertaining to the entries dated 04.05.2010. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties vide order dated 12.12.2011, dismissed the application. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, herein filed a revision petition before the District Judge, Bhimber on 16.01.2012. The learned District Judge, Bhimber dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 14.02.2012. He filed a writ petition in the High Court on 11.04.2012, which also met the same fate vide impugned judgment dated ,22.11.2014, hence this appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Hafiz Fazal-ur-Rehman Dar, Advocate, counsel or the appellants argued that the judgment passed by the learned High Court is based on misinterpretation of rules. He contended that the learned High Court while passing the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition on the ground that certified copy of the order of the Senior Civil Judge was not annexed with the writ petition, . Is against law and the High Court Procedure Rules, 1984. There was no requirement to annex the certified copy of the judgment of the trial Court with the writ petition and the same has been merged in the judgment of the District Judge. He further argued that the writ petition was admitted for regular hearing and after seeking the written statement, there was no justification to dismiss the same and the learned High Court has also overlooked the objections filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. He further contended that after admitting the writ petition for regular hearing the proper course was to decide the same on merit rather to decide the same on technical grounds, which is against law and the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984. He requested for acceptance of the appeal.
4. While controverting the arguments, Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Dun, Advocate, counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3, argued that the provisions of Rule 32 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 are mandatory in nature. The predecessor-ininterest of the appellants has not annexed the certified copy of the order of the trial Court with the writ petition which is clear departure from the provisions of law. The High Court has independently attended to the .Legal proposition involved in the writ petition and rightly came to the conclusion that the writ petition was incompetently filed. He requested for dismissal of the appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, if the High Court on the application of an aggrieved party, is satisfied that the order passed by the authority offends the clear legal provisions, is against the fundamental rights and no other adequate, efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, it may direct a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir or local authority or council to refrain from doing what he is not permitted by law to do or declare that any order passed or proceedings taken by a person are against law and set aside the same. An appeal from the judgment and decree of the Civil Court lies as of right before the next higher forum but the writ petition is competent when there is violation of law and rules. The writ petition cannot be decided as it is an appeal.
7. The perusal of the record reveals that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, who was plaintiff in the trial Court, was ordered to produce evidence in rebuttal if he chooses so. He filed an application for summoning the. Sub-Postmaster Jatlan as witness along with the concerned register pertaining to the entries dated 4th May, 2010. The trial Court after seeking objections and hearing the arguments dismissed the application. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants challenged the said order by way of revision petition before the District Judge which was also dismissed. He filed a writ petition in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court. A learned single Judge in the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that certified copy of the order of the trial Court has not been annexed with the writ petition. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants in the writ petition prayed for setting aside the order of the Civil Judge Bhimber dated 12th December, 2011 and the orders of the District Judge, dated 14th February, 2012 and 21st February, 2012. The certified copy of order of the Civil Judge, Bhimber was not filed with the writ petition instead a photocopy of the same was annexed with the writ petition. Rule 32 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 postulates that in the application under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, for an order or writ in the nature of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, quo-warranto etc. Shall be accompanied by an affidavit verifying the facts relied on, a certified copy of the impugned order and at least two copies thereof including annexure if any, shall be appended with the application. The predecessor- ininterest of the appellants along with the writ petition in the High Court only annexed photocopy of order of the Civil Judge, Bhimber dated 12th December, 2011. Under Article 87 of the Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984, (amended in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir), clearly provides that photocopy of a document is not admissible in evidence. It is clearly mentioned in Rule 32 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 that certified copy of the order impugned shall be appended with the writ petition. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants has not filed the certified copy, therefore, the writ petition without annexing the certified copy of the order which was challenged in the writ jurisdiction was not maintainable. There is no illegality in the judgment of the High Court.
The result of the above discussion is that the appeal has no force, it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. #EndJudgment